I voted for him and do not regret it. Ken Livingstone's time was up after his introduction of the "Bendy Bus", free travel for under 16s (promoting dependency amongst future adults) and doing oil deals with Venezuela's Chavez to fund it.

Boris Johnson supports social mobility, which involves accepting that we're not all equal. He supports the underdog working hard to make something of their lives despite the opposing view that wants to stifle entrepreneurialism and increase the number of graduates with useless degrees so that they can be employed in non-jobs funded by tax payers.

He supports selective state education that allows children from poorer backgrounds (and yes, genetically more intelligent) to achieve their full potential rather than be held back by a one size fits all.

Boris is much more realistic and a man of the people than Ken Livingstone was.

That's a bit long for a cracker joke, isn't it? If you're going to tell 'em, keep the punchlines snappier.

Just what I expected ! Rather than an erudite response I attract English sarcasm.

But it's hard to give an erudite response to such utter nonsense. Sorry - not trying to be rude, but your post sounds like it's been written from La La Land. Boris Johnson supports social mobility? A man of the people? Free bus fares promoting dependency!?! I'm nervous of further exploring your views on genetics...

Boris Johnson is a non-mayor.

On the contrary, your lack of realism is far more frightening and, by definition, belongs in "La La Land". If you could remove your prejudices and stop seeing Boris Johnson as a "toff" then you'd perhaps come across as a nicer person. Take the chip off your shoulder and move on.

If it's so difficult for you to give an erudite response then I suggest you stop posting.

Is this your definition of an erudite response? Says it all, really.

Mind you, I'm sure your Xmas in La La Land will be much nicer than here in the real world.

Let's just examine this a little further:

- in what way do I display a lack of realism? What you mean is, I don't agree with you. But you choose to make an 'ad hominem' attack. Not very 'nice' of you... or very 'erudite'.

- speaking of which, in what way have I not been 'nice'?

- where did I say Boris was a 'toff'?

- where have I displayed any prejudice? (And this from the poster who commented on poor people and intellect...).

(PS - that fact you choose to put words in my mouth and make assumptions about what I think, really only shows the apparent chip on YOUR shoulder, doesn't it?)

In all seriousness, it's Xmas and I don't want an argument. Putting a smiley in my reply is code for 'this is a light-hearted response', but it nevertheless seemed to touch a nerve with you, for whatever reason.

Sadly, after that, you chose to take an unpleasant tone. I don't feel that I did that.

It is hard, though, to take seriously the view that Boris Johnson is a man of the people, or that free bus travel promotes dependency. It brings to mind Jacob Rees-Mogg and his 'vox populi' interview.

He's so realistic he thinks he can site a major airport next to a 1940s bomb.

What people is he a 'man of'? Certainly not people like me.
Latin speakers maybe? Picaninnies?

A growing number of women...

And people who want someone's address so they can beat them up.

Here it is, for anyone looking for it.

But they didn't do well. The LibDems got a smaller percentage of the votes and fewer seats with Clegg than they did at the previous election under Charles Kennedy who didn't have the advantage of being part of televised debates.

This morning, Rachel (somebody) Shadow spokesman for something (!) was talking to Andrew Castle. Referring to the Government statistics, she complained they were not comparing apples with pears (precisely!). Surely she meant apples with apples!

Edit: Just looked her up. Rachel Reeves, Shadow Secretary for Work and Pensions.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Be0AVtUIMAANXny.jpg:large

Somebody should point out to the Opposition that it was Harold McMillan who told us we'd never had it so good, in 1957. Do keep up, Ed.

AC was keen to stress he wanted a balanced political debate and wanted to discuss things issue by issue, rather than along party battle lines.

I wish him luck... but I do find it frustrating when a criticism of a policy by Party X is countered with a criticism of Party Y. It would be much better if they actually talked about the issue, rather than each other, surely?!

Brought over from the Chit-Chat thread at Makeba72's request.

This is what started it off ...


and then ...










Is it a quantum leap? I still don't understand how someone with left wing views can support opting out of the State system, to something that they would argue against.

Yes, it's a quantum leap because I didn't say anything about schools! All I said was that someone having money isn't incompatible with holding left-wing or humanitarian views.

ANY politician who displays blatant hypocrisy should be held to account. And I don't disagree with you about schools issue. But by the same token, do you think someone holding right-wing views should opt out of the state system entirely?

My point was and is that far too often people use silly name-calling to belittle someone in an 'ad hominem' attack, rather than actually debate the issue at hand.

And on that topic, I think it would be much more sensible to argue each issue individually. I hold some left and some right wing views, depending on the issue. I'm sure most people are the same.

^ This.

BIB - By right-wing, I presume you mean Tory. But one of the basic tenets of Conservatism, which is why, in principle, I support it, is freedom of choice.

I still don't think it is such a leap from talking about people with a lot of money (and can afford private schools), but stand on a left-wing ticket which opposes such things. I have no objection to them using their wealth for humanitarian causes, or to give themselves some 'comfort'. I do object to the 'do as I say, and not as I do' culture.


Yes, I agree with you there, eg 'B-Liar' , it doesn't further the cause or move the debate any further.


Yet again, I am agreeing with you I don't suppose any political party holds all the views that I do, but I suppose it is a case of going for the best of the worst, unless we start up our own political party !!

PS I agree with G-S about freedom of choice!

It's nice to be in such accord! If I may say so, it reminds me of the Ken and David show a bit. In other words, I think Ken has been so misrepresented over the years, but when you actually listen to him speak, he's not really very radical and him and David agree on a lot of things. You just have to get past the rotten image carved out so carefully by a biased media.

I completely agree with you about attacking hypocrisy, but then who would disagree? I felt it was a quantum leap because you seemed to be taking one point (i.e. background doesn't have to dictate opinions) and attacking it by talking about a small band of hypocritical MP's. To me, those are entirely separate things.

To be honest, I think it's probably better not to automatically conflate 'right' with 'Tory', and certainly not 'left' with 'Labour'. I've said for a long while that right and left aren't very helpful terms anyway, as social and economic views are very different things. E.g. some would consider being Tory to be anti-gay marriage, whilst others would say it was a very Tory ideal to be pro (freedom of choice!).

By that same token, I think it's false to assume that being on the left means you don't support freedom of choice. Well, perhaps that's true of Communism, but it's also true of Fascism!

My personal politics is, I think, issue-based. And one basic thing that I hold true is this: Money was invented to serve mankind, but we have perverted that so that now mankind serves money. I suppose my biggest driver is to want to redress that balance a bit. Cost vs Value, and all that jazz.

So is mine.

I am Conservative on housing policy but not a lot else, Labour on NHS but not a lot else, Lib Dem on electoral reform but not a lot else, Green on protecting the countryside but not a lot else - though the countryside wins.

On other things, I am my own party.

Do you serve canapés?

I think most liberal (with a small l) thinkers are similar. I'm a Tory because I disagree with fewer of their policies than those of the others but I wouldn't defend them to the death!